Last night, in a group of men with whom I meet once a month, we had a discussion about the contemporary Church. Chris Hunter (who has been a youth/associate pastor in four Baptist churches) led our discussion.

In a sentence, I heard Chris say the Church needs to be far more creative and flexible (a la Michael Frost and ‘Church Next’ etc. See http://jmm.org.au/articles/2234.htm). Which raises interesting questions, like:

* Should a church be primarily mission-driven (or worship-driven, or koinonia-driven etc.)?

* Haven’t God’s people needed spiritual and corporate disciplines relating to time and space in the past? Has anything changed? If humans worship with more consistency and discipline in a ‘holy place’ and ‘holy time’ why are some moderns wanting to change all that? Traditionally (and tradition of course can be a good servant but a bad master) have churches which last the distance (or died, for that matter) been liturgically predictable? Why is there a movement of Evangelicals onto the ‘Canterbury Trail’ – and even into Orthodox churches, especially in the U.S.?

* How significant is the pervasive ubiquity of the media affecting ‘what we do in church’? What do you make of George Barna’s (?) idea that churches become large _not_ primarily because of their evangelistic effectiveness or spirituality, but through more effective marketing?

* To what extent does the health and vigour of a church depends on the enthusiasm-contagion from its leadership?

* Inward-looking churches may tend to emphasize prayer, spiritual gifts, signs and wonders etc. and see the church as ‘sanctuary’ from the world. They don’t invite too many friends to church, and would worship in a building that reflects these emphases. They can, over time, become a ‘museum for saints’…

* Outward-looking churches may be ‘mission-driven’. They primarily think of church as a ‘hospital for sinners/strugglers’ and their building might be a shop front etc. But they often burn out, and/or become too activist.

* Both of these extremes may reflect the ‘unfinished business / needs’ in the lives of the leader/s. For example people who are deeply hurt from bad past experiences will of course be more interested in healing, prayer etc. The self-sufficient will be tempted to get along without God’s power and strength.

Can you read in all this some dangers in ‘either/or-ness’?

Food for thought!

Shalom!

Rowland Croucher